42

The common law adversarial system is just that: the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense is not obliged to call evidence at all. They are allowed to though: they will do it merely if they feel that the prosecution evidence needs rebuttal — in order to discredit the evidence or, at least, raise that "reasonable doubt"....


19

Yes The common law legal systems all require proof beyond reasonable doubt of each of the elements of the crime. If the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to meet that burden on any of the elements then the defendant is not guilty. As a practical matter, this is dealt with in different ways depending on the status of the investigation/trial. If ...


17

This is known as Judicial notice and is used in many jurisdictions. It is normally supposed to be used only for facts about which there could be no possible controversy. The Wikipedia article linked above mentions such examples as "which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date or the approximate time at sunset." It can also be ...


14

Yes: So long as law enforcement did not compel the hackers to hack the data and the data was recovered by Law Enforcement through their investigation of the Hacker's breeching the server's security. Evidence of a crime committed by a third party is admissiable if it came to light during an unrelated investigation. The party that did the hacking could still ...


12

The Meme is Incorrect Law enforcement in the united-states may disturb or dig up plants that are listed as endangered species while unearthing evidence of a serious crime. 16 U.S. Code § 1538 subsection (a) ,(2) provides that: (2) Except as provided in sections 1535(g)(2) and 1539 of this title, with respect to any endangered species of plants listed ...


10

The short answer is that propensity evidence can only be circumstantial evidence and that it is generally inadmissible. But we should start by clarifying what "circumstantial evidence" means. It is not the opposite of legal evidence, but more like the opposite of direct evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that independently establishes a fact in ...


9

"burden of proof is nominally with the prosecution in most circumstances, but in practice it seems to be somewhat shared" The issue is in your interpretation of the phrase "burden of proof". This term has a specific meaning. What it doesn't mean is that a particular party is the only one who can or should give evidence. Rather, it means ...


8

For convenience, I am listing federal rules of evidence, but Wisconsin would have substantially similar rules. The law makes no real distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. But many rules of evidence regulate propensity evidence and when it can be considered. Propensity evidence is a subset of "character evidence." Propensity ...


7

Opening and closing statements are to state the reason we are in court today and thus are more emotional appeals than factual summations. Consider writing a term paper or five-paragraph essay. You do not use your opening or final paragraph to present factual evidence or cite sources, but rather state your objective and core arguments and what you intend ...


6

If Bob acknowledges how he has altered the evidence at the time he submits it, there shouldn't be any issues with it turning into falsification, which generally only becomes a problem when it's done with an intent to mislead the court. More likely, an opposing party would raise an authenticity objection, i.e, that the evidence has been altered and is ...


6

This is a perfectly common question. "What is your full name?" "Do you have any aliases?" "What other names do you go by?" Like any other question, though, it must be relevant, and you should be prepared to explain why it is relevant. If the court allows the question, the defendant must answer.


5

Police reports are treated as "Business Records" and are therefore not excluded by the hearsay rule, regardless of the availability of the declarant. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803: Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Business Records Exception The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a ...


4

The parties are generally entitled to present their case as they see fit, as long as they stay within the rules of evidence. If they want a straight yes or no, the court will often require the witness to provide one, which keeps lawyers happy, makes the answers clear for the jury, and limits the parties' grounds for appeal. If a yes or no answer is not as ...


4

The defense made it relevant. If the defense is going to argue that elements of Floyd's character and past are relevant to the case, then the prosecution generally gets to undercut and counter that with facts of his character and past that cast him in a more positive light. Similarly, if the prosecution gets to provide such things, then the defense gets to ...


4

Only a jury can answer your question, and then on a case-by-case basis. When a witness testifies, the question of whether and to what extent to believe/disbelieve a witness is nearly 100% the decision of the jury (or the judge in a bench trial). In a criminal trial, at least, if a thousand disinterested nuns can take the stand and give identical testimony ...


3

In any legal system where the defendant is "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. The defense has no burden which would require them to provide evidence. However, the defense has the right to provide evidence, and it is almost always in the defense's interest to do ...


3

A fact cannot by itself constitute reasonable suspicion; the word "reasonable" describes not only the relationship between the fact and the possible existence of a crime, but also the officer's knowledge about the fact. The officer must not only sincerely believe the truth of the facts constituting reasonable suspicion, but must also reasonably ...


3

In england-and-wales all wild plants are legally protected to varing degrees by section 13 the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those plants listed in Schedule 8 are protected by s.13(1)(a) and all others by s.13(1)(b) s.13(1) [ ... ] if any person— (a) intentionally picks, uproots or destroys any wild plant included in Schedule 8; or (b) not being an ...


3

The question says: Callahan used torture to get the location of the hostage out of the suspect, and information acquired by torture is not admissible as evidence. In general, evidence obtained by torture is indeed not admissible in US courts. This is particularly true when the person doing the torture is a police officer. If it is done by a private citizen,...


2

In closing arguments, an attorney should only refer to evidence that was admitted at trial. In opening arguments, an attorney may refer to evidence that the attorney reasonably believes will be admitted at trial, and if the attorney has grounds to admit the transcript as an exhibit, could do so. If not, the attorney could still reasonable state: the ...


2

The Likely Ruling Assuming points 1 and 2 in the question, all the evidence from the trunk would be inadmissible, and if there really is no other evidence against Bob, then Bob would go free. This is highly improbable, the prosecution would find some grounds to dispute the unlawful nature of stop and search, even if ones the court would not accept. A ...


2

Why are statements made to the police considered acceptable as evidence when used in your prosecution, but hearsay when used in your defense? They aren't necessarily considered acceptable. As pointed by Colin Losey, they are hearsay too and it would be an exception to accept them. This does not contradict the letter of the Miranda warning: they "can be ...


2

The admission of such evidence would not be barred by the 4th Amendment (in federal court) or the 4th Amendment as incorporated through the 14th Amendment (in state court). Whether or not the evidence would be admissible, however, does not automatically follow from resolution of the constitutional criminal procedure question. If the illegally obtained ...


2

Partiality may discredit a witness But that, and the extent to which it discounts their evidence is a matter for the jury. From the new-south-wales Criminal Trials Bench Book: [3-625] Motive to lie and the onus of proof Crown witnesses A motive to lie or to be untruthful, if it is established, may “substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of ...


2

As other answers noted, the defence doesn't have to provide evidence at all if they don't want to. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt in most places, and the defence only needs to provide evidence in as far as they want to challenge the evidence provided by the prosecution. As for what you actually seem to be getting at: Having the prosecution take on ...


1

when a regular (non-expert) witness does not like the defendant (and admits it when asked), does that alone give a valid reason to discredit them to any extent at all? Not alone. It is simply another factor the jury may consider in weighing a witness's credibility. U.S. v. Bonilla-Guizar, 729 F.3d 1179, 1186 (2013). If anything, from a practical standpoint, ...


1

The general problem with a "letter from the grave" is that it violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The major decisions interpreting the Confrontation Clause from the years in question are: Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (holding that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the introduction of hearsay statements ...


1

As others pointed out, there is a gap between theory and practice. In theory, the prosecution must prove their case and the judge and/or jury will act accordingly. The defense has to do nothing. In practice, prosecutors are not supposed to bring a case if they don't think they can win (a waste of taxpayer's money, if nothing else). So if the prosecutor sees ...


1

So I wonder whether there are any criminal trial processes around the world which place the entire burden of collecting evidence on the prosecution In the US, there is a burden on the prosecution to present the case against the defendant's guilt. The prosecution is required to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defense, and it is a massive ethics ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible